United States v. Olalde-Garcia

Case: 24-10595 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

February 20, 2025 No. 24-10595 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Oscar Olalde-Garcia,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CR-42-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Defendant-appellant Oscar Olalde-Garcia appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), based on Case: 24-10595 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2025

No. 24-10595 facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Olalde-Garcia acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Olalde-Garcia is correct that his argument is foreclosed. Because the government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary affirmance is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.